The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition filed by the State challenging a review order allowing consideration of subsequent facts regarding surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, overruling submissions that the review was untenable.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; interim orders vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reserved on : 12.09.2018
Delivered on : 10.10.2018
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21758 of 1986
Petitioner :- The State Of U.P. Respondent :- A.D.J. Counsel for Petitioner :- B.P. Srivastava,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava,Sashi Nandan,V.M. Zaidi
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The reviewing court had no power to sit in appeal is the main submission made by Shri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent, while admitting this petition preferred by the Collector, this Court had granted stay of the operation of the impugned order. The provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1976) will have to be perused. A notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1960) was issued against the tenure holder who during the pendency of the litigation has passed away. The notice mentioned that 23.2 biswa of land was surplus land.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that judgment is bad as respondent No. 2, that is the father of Kazim Ali has received the notice and objection was also filed and he gave his option. The prescribed authority after considering the material on record rejected the objection of the said tenure holder. The said order was carried in appeal before Additional District Judge and the appeal was also dismissed with a direction that the fresh option may be filed within a period of one month. The option was filed by the father of respondent No.2 before the prescribed authority and the same remains pending. A writ petition came to be preferred, which was also again dismissed. The father of respondent No.2 died on 29.6.1976. The respondent No.2 was the only son of his father sought for impleadment in the writ petition and they were impleaded. Special Leave Petition was filed, however, during this entire period, the application for option moved by the father was still pending. The prescribed authority once again dismissed the claim of the respondent. No choice of any plot before the prescribed authority was given by the heirs of respondent No.2,
the tenure-holder. The prescribed authority, it is alleged has taken away the possession and was allotted to some people.
It is also submitted that aggrieved with the said judgment and order dated 21.10.1983, passed by the prescribed authority, the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 moved an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and the respondent No. 1, i.e., the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, also rejected the appeal vide its judgment and order dated 2.6.1986. A review petition came to be filed, which was allowed. The reviewing authority countenanced the subsequent facts.
Per contra, it has been submitted by Shri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the Act, 1976 came into existence in 1976, which over-writes all other provisions and this plea had not been considered and, therefore, review cannot said to be bad.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 further alleged that a will dated 20.10.1971 has already been executed by the father of the respondent No.2 in favour of respondents No.2, 3 and 4, in fact, this will has no relevance to the facts of the present case as the alleged will dated 20.10.1971 has been executed after the relevant date, i.e., 24.1.1971 and that will has only been executed only with a view to escape from the clutches of the ceiling limit and hence this will is not tenable in the eye of law for the purpose of calculating the ceiling limit of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
It has wrongly been stated by the respondents 2, 3 and 4 that they moved an application on 23.1.1981 or before 23.12.1980 and they got the order from the court concerned they were permitted to move an option application regarding choice of plots in question up to 22.2.1981. The said submission is rejected as it is very clear that option application ws given by father of the impleaded respondents. The plots cannot be said to be under the Act, 1960.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 10.10.2018 LN Tripathi
State Of U.P.
A.D.J.
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
